I go to Gallatin Valley Presbyterian Church in Bozeman MT. Their website is here: http://www.gvpchurch.org/ The denomination is PCA, the PCA's website is here: http://www.pcanet.org/ The most prominent of the PCA churches is Coral Ridge Presbyterian in Florida pastored by Dr. James Kennedy.
Hugh McBryde
Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?
Hugh,
So much to reply to I hardly know where to start but I will try.
First, I do not justify polyandry, quite the opposite. In consideration of 1 Tim. 3:2 and 5:9 it should be understood that it was far more likely Paul had in mind people who were divorced on improper grounds than polygamists. It is well documented that monogamy predominated in the Greek world and was not practiced by the Romans. It was practiced somewhat by the Jews, by those prominent in government and the aristocracy. It is not likely there many polygamists in the church.
"Your imprudent and blind masters (Jewish teachers) even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives." -Justin Martyr, c. 160. "Others, again, following upon Basilades and Capocrates, have introduced promiscous intercourse and a plurality of wives...maintaining God is not greatly concerned with such matters." - Irenaeus, c.180. The early church sure went wrong quickly (and the church through history) if you are correct that polygamy is not sin.
That a man and woman can be "one flesh" while the man is one flesh with several others may make sense to you but is nonsensical to me.
In reference to Matthew 19:9, you said "no, the reason it is adultery is because the first wife was put away for an invalid reason". And "It is in fact only possible for a man to commit adultery against his ex wife, and only if he had abanded her unjustly through divorce for no cause, and only if he married again afterwards." You have made my case! He has two wives! He is a polygamist and an adulterer!
Part of your difficulty is due to your misunderstanding of the "vague" "uncleanness". Some translations (NIV) say "adultery" in Matthew 19:9. The Greek word is porneia, a word meaning sexual immorality of any kind: fornication, adultery, incest, homosexual acts, etc. (Don't let anyone tell you Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual acts, He said porneia defiles a man.) Likewise you assume that "indecency"(NASB) in Deut. 24 means adultery. This is very problematic; the husband would have no need to divorce her for the law required her to be stoned to death Lev:20:10.
You say polygamy is not missing the mark (sinning) because God allowed it (you apparently see it as commanded) in the Old Testament. You must also keep the Sabbath, there is no command not to in the New Testament.
You, and all followers of Messiah, should be aware there is a move afoot, running rampant on the internet, attempting to justify polygamy. The homosexuals are, through eisejesis of the scriptures, also trying to justify their behavior.
In Christ, Homer
So much to reply to I hardly know where to start but I will try.
First, I do not justify polyandry, quite the opposite. In consideration of 1 Tim. 3:2 and 5:9 it should be understood that it was far more likely Paul had in mind people who were divorced on improper grounds than polygamists. It is well documented that monogamy predominated in the Greek world and was not practiced by the Romans. It was practiced somewhat by the Jews, by those prominent in government and the aristocracy. It is not likely there many polygamists in the church.
"Your imprudent and blind masters (Jewish teachers) even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives." -Justin Martyr, c. 160. "Others, again, following upon Basilades and Capocrates, have introduced promiscous intercourse and a plurality of wives...maintaining God is not greatly concerned with such matters." - Irenaeus, c.180. The early church sure went wrong quickly (and the church through history) if you are correct that polygamy is not sin.
That a man and woman can be "one flesh" while the man is one flesh with several others may make sense to you but is nonsensical to me.
In reference to Matthew 19:9, you said "no, the reason it is adultery is because the first wife was put away for an invalid reason". And "It is in fact only possible for a man to commit adultery against his ex wife, and only if he had abanded her unjustly through divorce for no cause, and only if he married again afterwards." You have made my case! He has two wives! He is a polygamist and an adulterer!
Part of your difficulty is due to your misunderstanding of the "vague" "uncleanness". Some translations (NIV) say "adultery" in Matthew 19:9. The Greek word is porneia, a word meaning sexual immorality of any kind: fornication, adultery, incest, homosexual acts, etc. (Don't let anyone tell you Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual acts, He said porneia defiles a man.) Likewise you assume that "indecency"(NASB) in Deut. 24 means adultery. This is very problematic; the husband would have no need to divorce her for the law required her to be stoned to death Lev:20:10.
You say polygamy is not missing the mark (sinning) because God allowed it (you apparently see it as commanded) in the Old Testament. You must also keep the Sabbath, there is no command not to in the New Testament.
You, and all followers of Messiah, should be aware there is a move afoot, running rampant on the internet, attempting to justify polygamy. The homosexuals are, through eisejesis of the scriptures, also trying to justify their behavior.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
I have said as much as I intend to about the polygamy question, but another was brought up by Rae and answered by Hugh, regarding the woman's equal right to divorce.
I have heard Hugh's position argued before, and, in part, I am impressed that it has some biblical grounds...at least in the Old Testament. I have read that women, in Jewish society had no right to divorce, though Jesus mentions women divorcing their husbands alongside the matter of men divorcing their wives, in Mark 10:11-12, as if both practices were known in Israel in His day. I don't know how much to make of this point, but it is worthy of notice.
I also feel that the New Testament seems to place the rights of women to divorce on the same level with the rights of men in Paul's comment that "The brother or sister is not in bondage under such cases" (1 Cor.7:15). But I imagine that this can be countered by the observation that it speaks of an abandoned spouse, whether male or female, and may imply that the other, departing spouse has actually obtained the divorce. This would leave the deserted wife free to remarry (as per Deut.24), but might say nothing of her right to initiate the divorce.
It is true that the Old Testament knows nothing of adultery committed by a man against his wife, and it is no doubt because polygamy and concubinage were open options to the man. Presumably, if a man slept with a woman other than his wife, so long as the new woman did not belong to another man, instead of that being called adultery, it may have fallen into the category of concubinage (I don't know. I am only guessing).
I have historically seen 1 Corinthians 7:4 as Paul's affirmation that, among Christians, a wife was to be seen as having the same exclusive sexual rights to her husband as the husband has to his wife. That is, in the Old Testament, the husband had exclusive sexual access to his wife (no other man could have her), but the woman did not have similar exclusive access to her husband (he could have other women).
This seems to be changed, in the mind of Paul, so that the two have equally exclusive sexual rights to each other. If this is true, then it would no longer be appropriate for a man to take additional wives, and, if he had women other than his wife, he would now be an adulterer, just as his wife would be an adulteress if she were to have additional men (Rom.7:3). This might result in giving women the same moral rationale and privilege of divorce as already existed with men.
Since I never advocate divorce, even where biblical grounds exist, my counsel to a woman with an adulterous husband would be the same as my counsel to a man with an adulterous wife--namely, don't seek to be loosed (1 Cor.7:27), unless your spouse departs and initiates the divorce (1 Cor.7:12-15). I say this not as law, but as an exhibition of grace. The grace to forgive and continue with an unfaithful spouse is costly (I know, because I stayed with an adulterous wife), but I think it is a Christian distinctive that we should not lightly cast away.
I have heard Hugh's position argued before, and, in part, I am impressed that it has some biblical grounds...at least in the Old Testament. I have read that women, in Jewish society had no right to divorce, though Jesus mentions women divorcing their husbands alongside the matter of men divorcing their wives, in Mark 10:11-12, as if both practices were known in Israel in His day. I don't know how much to make of this point, but it is worthy of notice.
I also feel that the New Testament seems to place the rights of women to divorce on the same level with the rights of men in Paul's comment that "The brother or sister is not in bondage under such cases" (1 Cor.7:15). But I imagine that this can be countered by the observation that it speaks of an abandoned spouse, whether male or female, and may imply that the other, departing spouse has actually obtained the divorce. This would leave the deserted wife free to remarry (as per Deut.24), but might say nothing of her right to initiate the divorce.
It is true that the Old Testament knows nothing of adultery committed by a man against his wife, and it is no doubt because polygamy and concubinage were open options to the man. Presumably, if a man slept with a woman other than his wife, so long as the new woman did not belong to another man, instead of that being called adultery, it may have fallen into the category of concubinage (I don't know. I am only guessing).
I have historically seen 1 Corinthians 7:4 as Paul's affirmation that, among Christians, a wife was to be seen as having the same exclusive sexual rights to her husband as the husband has to his wife. That is, in the Old Testament, the husband had exclusive sexual access to his wife (no other man could have her), but the woman did not have similar exclusive access to her husband (he could have other women).
This seems to be changed, in the mind of Paul, so that the two have equally exclusive sexual rights to each other. If this is true, then it would no longer be appropriate for a man to take additional wives, and, if he had women other than his wife, he would now be an adulterer, just as his wife would be an adulteress if she were to have additional men (Rom.7:3). This might result in giving women the same moral rationale and privilege of divorce as already existed with men.
Since I never advocate divorce, even where biblical grounds exist, my counsel to a woman with an adulterous husband would be the same as my counsel to a man with an adulterous wife--namely, don't seek to be loosed (1 Cor.7:27), unless your spouse departs and initiates the divorce (1 Cor.7:12-15). I say this not as law, but as an exhibition of grace. The grace to forgive and continue with an unfaithful spouse is costly (I know, because I stayed with an adulterous wife), but I think it is a Christian distinctive that we should not lightly cast away.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
First demonstrate that it is a sin...
Homer,
First of all, I'd like to speak to you and any other that would like to make what amount to closing arguments before the evidence has been presented. You make a number of remarks which I will ignore that are geared to how awful sin is, how awful rationalizing sin is and how awful twisting scripture is. It has not been demonstrated that I do these things. No one has even come close yet. This is not to say that someone will not, but it has not been done yet and I don't want to hear descriptions of how bad sin is, we both agree that it is bad, what we are disagreeing about is what constitutes sin.
Hugh McBryde
First of all, I'd like to speak to you and any other that would like to make what amount to closing arguments before the evidence has been presented. You make a number of remarks which I will ignore that are geared to how awful sin is, how awful rationalizing sin is and how awful twisting scripture is. It has not been demonstrated that I do these things. No one has even come close yet. This is not to say that someone will not, but it has not been done yet and I don't want to hear descriptions of how bad sin is, we both agree that it is bad, what we are disagreeing about is what constitutes sin.
I'm glad that you have noticed that any believers were that were also Roman citizens were under the mandate of the Roman empire to be monogamous. Since it is not wrong to refrain from Polygyny, it wouldn't be the end of the world to forego Polygyny to stay on society's good side and you can still be married, monogamously. I often wonder if it entered Paul's mind that he wanted his elders to have standing in the community at large and making them eligible to be Roman Citizens was important to him. He never says why it is he makes this requirement of Elders, so we can only speculate. I disagree that he made this provision for divorced men, but I myself, having been divorced, err on the side of caution and would refuse all Elder offices offered to me while my ex still lives. There were polygnous men in the Roman empire, there were Polygynous Jews in the churches, among the 12 tribes that are dispersed that James wrote to. It is most obviously a qualification of office that the Elder be monogamous. It may also speak to divorced persons. You seem to agree that there were Polygynous persons in the early church though you count their numbers as small. Keep in mind Homer, Paul is perhaps second only to Gamaliel as a genius in the Law of Moses in his time. He knew the many and specific injunctions to not forbidding that which was not forbidden, and not adding to the Law. You and I both agree that there were Polygynous marriages in the early church, thus by not taking this last chance to forbid the practice in scripture, I have to say it is because Paul saw nothing wrong with it. He had examples of the practice, you say probably in a minority, why is it that he does not take this chance to finally stamp out an "ungodly" practice? The most logical reason is, it is not ungodly.Homer wrote:"Paul had in mind people who were divorced on improper grounds than polygamists. It is well documented that monogamy predominated in the Greek world and was not practiced by the Romans."
Why? It was obviously possible else Joash would not have had two wives, nor would Elkanah have had two wives, their wives were both wives, simoultaneously. One flesh with their husbands, simoultaneously. Even if the practice was substandard, it was possible, and thus your amazement is baseless. It was possible. They were wives, (plural) and you are one flesh with your wife, CASE CLOSED. You could still argue that perhaps we ought not, but you cannot argue "one flesh" as anti Polygyny/pro Monogamy evidence.Homer wrote:"That a man and woman can be 'one flesh' while the man is one flesh with several others may make sense to you but is nonsensical to me."
No, I have not made your case, the man ceased to be the woman's husband through divorce. The seperation is real, the divorce is real, the marriage has ended but the man has sinned against his wife by unjustly putting her away. Thus when he marries again, having unjustly dealt with his previous wife, who is no longer his wife, he is said to commit adultery against her. You keep going to the well of your unsupported definition of adultery, which is that a man could commit it against his wife. Jesus is more strengthening the idea found in Exodus 21 or presenting a new concept, that there is a way for a man to commit adultery against a woman. Previous definitions in God's law never mention adultery in any way shape or form as an act that a man can commit against a woman at all. They are all framed as acts a woman commits with another man against God and her husband or her betrothed. You suppose that it is the sex with another woman that makes the man adulterous, but it is not, it is the unfaithfullness of a man in throwing a woman out of her rightful position in a family and depriving her of her support and status. There is ZERO evidence that the man in Matthew 19 is married to two women, the problem in fact is quite the opposite, since he had no reason to divorce his first wife, and did, and substituted another woman for her. His false and serial monogamy is the problem, not his Polygyny.Homer wrote:"In reference to Matthew 19:9, you said 'no, the reason it is adultery is because the first wife was put away for an invalid reason'. And 'It is in fact only possible for a man to commit adultery against his ex wife, and only if he had abandoned her unjustly through divorce for no cause, and only if he married again afterwards.' You have made my case! He has two wives! He is a polygamist and an adulterer!"
First of all, Christ did not say "porneia" in my view. We in fact do not know which Hebrew or Aramaic word he said. It hardly matters to me though, he refered to the general category of sexual "indecency/uncleanness" which we know as fornication, of which there is a specific sub-category known as adultery. Adultery is the fornication of a married person, with someone to whom she is NOT married, with the specific addition of the unjustly divorcing husband of Matthew 19. Divorce is also a merciful option. Adulterous women were still being stoned in Jesus time as they could rightly expect to be for their sin. The adulterous man ought to be stoned as well, the man with whom that woman had sinned. Why is it then that Mary is not offered for stoning? Betrothal was all a marriage was except for consumation, which mattered not to a Hebrew, the vow as as binding as the consumation. What does Joseph do? "Being a RIGHTEOUS MAN" he sought divorce Mary quietly. Divorce offered a way to show mercy to a wayward woman when she was unrepentant. Mary certainly would not have confessed to an adultery, Joseph would have regarded her as unrepentant.Homer wrote:"Part of your difficulty is due to your misunderstanding of the 'vague' 'uncleanness'. Some translations (NIV) say 'adultery' in Matthew 19:9. The Greek word is porneia, a word meaning sexual immorality of any kind: fornication, adultery, incest, homosexual acts, etc. (Don't let anyone tell you Jesus had nothing to say about homosexual acts, He said porneia defiles a man.) Likewise you assume that 'indecency'(NASB) in Deut. 24 means adultery. This is very problematic; the husband would have no need to divorce her for the law required her to be stoned to death Lev:20:10."
I in fact maintain adamently that it was commanded in some cases of the application of Levirate Law, found in Deuteronomy 25. You fool yourself if you think that this inheritance preserving law, in an inheritance and tribal society did not compell a few Polygynies. Men were betrothed early and married to preserve their line and their inheritance. The notion that a single unbetrothed brother was available to take your wife to raise up children for you in the event of your death, is the supposition of a lunatic. I can frame it no other way. Thus though as a side effect, Polygyny is sometimes compelled, and God has commanded some of his people to do a thing you regard as loathesome and sinful. I never said however that the state of marriage was commaned to all or even most of Hebrew society, but it was compelled to many men who followed Levirate law, it's probably safe to say it was compelled to most of them who followed that law.Homer wrote:"You say polygamy is not missing the mark (sinning) because God allowed it (you apparently see it as commanded) in the Old Testament."
Homer, until you can demonstrate the sinfulness of Polygyny, I ask that you never, never do this again. Homosexuality is not comperable to Polygyny. You might as well say most of the patriarchs and Kings of Israel were gay. Homosexuality is an abomination which under the law of God given to Moses was punished by death. Never take this cheap shot approach with me again by trying to tar me with the same brush that sodomites are justly condemned.Homer wrote:"You, and all followers of Messiah, should be aware there is a move afoot, running rampant on the internet, attempting to justify polygamy. The homosexuals are, through eisejesis of the scriptures, also trying to justify their behavior."
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Saying you shouldn't divorce does not imply a permission
I would make two points, one is that again, as I said in the previous post, we do not know what word Jesus used in the Aramaic or Hebrew to say that women should not divorce their husbands. Thus we have an interesting translation problem. Christ's words are translated to the Greek, then translated to the English and we assume that he used the same term as was used in Deuternomy 24. Understandable at first, but we should be cautious. Second, he says they shouldn't do it. I can't see forbidding that something be done as any kind of permission to do a thing.Steve wrote:"I have read that women, in Jewish society had no right to divorce, though Jesus mentions women divorcing their husbands alongside the matter of men divorcing their wives, in Mark 10:11-12, as if both practices were known in Israel in His day. I don't know how much to make of this point, but it is worthy of notice."
In this case no term translated as divorce is used. Instead Paul speaks of not being bound, which again reaches back to Exodus 21, the only similar passage in scripture. Here and in Exodus 21, it seems the relationship is immediately over, when the unbelieving spouse deserts.Steve wrote:"I also feel that the New Testament seems to place the rights of women to divorce on the same level with the rights of men in Paul's comment that 'The brother or sister is not in bondage under such cases' (1 Cor.7:15)."
It may have been fornication and per the law, the father of the girl in question could either compell marriage to her, or refuse his daughter to the man. In the case of a slave girl, that girl was that man's immediate concubine, he already owned her.Steve wrote:"It is true that the Old Testament knows nothing of adultery committed by a man against his wife, and it is no doubt because polygamy and concubinage were open options to the man. Presumably, if a man slept with a woman other than his wife, so long as the new woman did not belong to another man, instead of that being called adultery, it may have fallen into the category of concubinage (I don't know. I am only guessing)."
Are we building a whole doctrine on a feeling about the possible implication of a verse? Is this the "Paul as a shy man" theory again? Let's get real, if Paul had wanted to say this, he would have said it.Steve wrote:"I have historically seen 1 Corinthians 7:4 as Paul's affirmation that, among Christians, a wife was to be seen as having the same exclusive sexual rights to her husband as the husband has to his wife. That is, in the Old Testament, the husband had exclusive sexual access to his wife (no other man could have her), but the woman did not have similar exclusive access to her husband (he could have other women)."
Eventually there is an end to things. Even God depicts himself as getting a divorce from Israel. I also stayed with an adulterous wife. I even refused to recognize a divorce that she undertook civilly against me. I finally called the game when she took another husband under the law of the land, I wrote her a letter and said she was divorced from me. I too do not recommend divorce, but when a man has moved into my wife's house and and they call each other husband and wife, I think it's over.Steve wrote:"Since I never advocate divorce, even where biblical grounds exist, my counsel to a woman with an adulterous husband would be the same as my counsel to a man with an adulterous wife--namely, don't seek to be loosed (1 Cor.7:27), unless your spouse departs and initiates the divorce (1 Cor.7:12-15). I say this not as law, but as an exhibition of grace. The grace to forgive and continue with an unfaithful spouse is costly (I know, because I stayed with an adulterous wife), but I think it is a Christian distinctive that we should not lightly cast away."
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
If I read the scripture correctly the spouse who's mate has committed adultry has an option. Sure staying in the marriage is grace and forgiveness but according to Jesus there is an option. Been there done that.
PS Option to divorce or stay in marriage
PS Option to divorce or stay in marriage
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
As I have said before....
I read that it is the husband that has the option, since the option is never given to the wife, and since men cannot commit adultery against their own wives. They can commit it against unjustly divorced EX wives.believer wrote:"If I read the scripture correctly the spouse who's mate has committed adultry has an option."
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hugh
I apologize if you were offended by my comment regarding the homosexual's revisionism but I was only comparing methods used by those promoting polygamy and the homosexuals which I see as similar.
I have noticed that you keep referring to the Hebrew or Aramaic that Jesus spoke which seems to imply that Matthew might not have faithfully given the correct meaning of Jesus' words in Greek. I would point out that Matthew used both porneia and moicheia in Matthew 19:9 to render what Jesus said. The former is a much broader term than the latter, as you must know. Matthew must have been quite aware of what Jesus meant.
In regard to the statement of Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9 I submit the following for consideration:
1. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures) commented: "Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage comsumated by the physical union. Breaking that bond (i.e. adultery) does annul it".
2. Henry Alford (Greek New Testament) states:" ...the tenor of our Lord's teaching...seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however He may sanction the expulsion of an unfaithful wife".
3. Joachim Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus) states: "in Mark 10:8 and Matthew 19:5 He quotes Genesis 2:24 in its antipolygamic form, i.e. with the words two flesh which are found only in the LXX, Syr.,Vulg., and Targum."
4. J. W. McGarvey (The Fourfold Gospel) states in regard to "two flesh": "Jesus went back to the original law propounded by God and recorded by Moses, and shows by it: 1. That marriage is a fundamental principle of social order, God having it in view from creation, and hence making male and female. 2. That the relation of marriage is superior even to the parental relation. 3. That by it the pair become one flesh, so that the man is as joined to his wife as to his own body. Now, since a man can only be separted from his parental relations or from his own body by death, which is an act of God, so it follows that the superior or similar relation of marriage can only be disolved by an act of God. Thus Jesus draws the conclusion that no man or body of men, whether acting in private, civil, or ecclesiastical capacity, can disolve marriage otherwise than according to the decrees of God."
As before, I am convinced the man in Jesus' discourse commits adultery because in Jesus' eyes the marriage to the first wife still stands.
If you have some authority better than those cited, I'd like to hear it.
You stated "Jesus view of the law is that it is still in place...". Do you mean today?
You continue to insist that the man has rights superior to that of the wife. Apparently you view the status of women as the Jews did - the same as children and slaves. The New Testament sets a different standard.
In this matter I am in good company. My position on polygamy is the same as Christians of all stripes have adherred to down through the ages.
If I were taking your position, telling someone it is "perfectly alright to have two wives", I would be trembling in my shoes, knowing what Messiah said about those who cause someone to stumble! Based on your arguments, I can't see how you are so bold (or rash).
In Christ, Homer
I apologize if you were offended by my comment regarding the homosexual's revisionism but I was only comparing methods used by those promoting polygamy and the homosexuals which I see as similar.
I have noticed that you keep referring to the Hebrew or Aramaic that Jesus spoke which seems to imply that Matthew might not have faithfully given the correct meaning of Jesus' words in Greek. I would point out that Matthew used both porneia and moicheia in Matthew 19:9 to render what Jesus said. The former is a much broader term than the latter, as you must know. Matthew must have been quite aware of what Jesus meant.
In regard to the statement of Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9 I submit the following for consideration:
1. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures) commented: "Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage comsumated by the physical union. Breaking that bond (i.e. adultery) does annul it".
2. Henry Alford (Greek New Testament) states:" ...the tenor of our Lord's teaching...seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however He may sanction the expulsion of an unfaithful wife".
3. Joachim Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus) states: "in Mark 10:8 and Matthew 19:5 He quotes Genesis 2:24 in its antipolygamic form, i.e. with the words two flesh which are found only in the LXX, Syr.,Vulg., and Targum."
4. J. W. McGarvey (The Fourfold Gospel) states in regard to "two flesh": "Jesus went back to the original law propounded by God and recorded by Moses, and shows by it: 1. That marriage is a fundamental principle of social order, God having it in view from creation, and hence making male and female. 2. That the relation of marriage is superior even to the parental relation. 3. That by it the pair become one flesh, so that the man is as joined to his wife as to his own body. Now, since a man can only be separted from his parental relations or from his own body by death, which is an act of God, so it follows that the superior or similar relation of marriage can only be disolved by an act of God. Thus Jesus draws the conclusion that no man or body of men, whether acting in private, civil, or ecclesiastical capacity, can disolve marriage otherwise than according to the decrees of God."
As before, I am convinced the man in Jesus' discourse commits adultery because in Jesus' eyes the marriage to the first wife still stands.
If you have some authority better than those cited, I'd like to hear it.
You stated "Jesus view of the law is that it is still in place...". Do you mean today?
You continue to insist that the man has rights superior to that of the wife. Apparently you view the status of women as the Jews did - the same as children and slaves. The New Testament sets a different standard.
In this matter I am in good company. My position on polygamy is the same as Christians of all stripes have adherred to down through the ages.
If I were taking your position, telling someone it is "perfectly alright to have two wives", I would be trembling in my shoes, knowing what Messiah said about those who cause someone to stumble! Based on your arguments, I can't see how you are so bold (or rash).
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
I did not take this stand lightly.
I am not saying that, I am saying that there are many words that do not have a direct identical meaning in going from one language to another. Divorce as an English word is an excellent case in point, it simply doesn't mean what what the Hebrew word it was translated from means. The Hebrew word in fact means less. This is what I think the Apostle Paul spoke to when he talks about "word wrangling." If we focus to much on one word, we're missing the point. All I am saying is that we need to be aware of the context in which Christ uses a word, and then it matters less what it was translated into. Christ is obviously saying that a woman should not sever her relationship to her husband, but we don't know if he used the exact same term as the Law used in Deuteronomy 24. On this verse about women not divorcing men I have seen a whole doctrine built to say that women can divorce them in the scriptural and original sense of the term. The case is built on the implication that if Jesus is saying no to divorce in this case, he's admitting that there are other cases where the answer could be yes. Nothing of the sort is said.Homer wrote:"I have noticed that you keep referring to the Hebrew or Aramaic that Jesus spoke which seems to imply that Matthew might not have faithfully given the correct meaning of Jesus' words in Greek."
I am dubious about his use of the term Annul. I say there is no such thing as Annulment of marriage. The "physical bond" he speaks of discounts what Joseph had to propose to be free of Mary. He had to divorce her. No physical bond yet existed such as he defines it. Mary and Joseph had not "consumated" their relationship yet he sought a divorce. It is the VOW that creates the bond later more fully realized in the physical union."1. A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures) commented: 'Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage comsumated by the physical union. Breaking that bond (i.e. adultery) does annul it'."
I would agree there is a bond that is not erased simply, but it can be erased as evidenced by the fact that a wife who is divorced who becomes the wife of another man, cannot return to her first husband ever. He's wrong, the bond is breakable, but only certain things can do it. A woman who has been divorced justly would be an adulteress again for a subsequent marriage, because of that bond, but that new vow of marriage would in fact break that bond."2. Henry Alford (Greek New Testament) states:' ...the tenor of our Lord's teaching...seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however He may sanction the expulsion of an unfaithful wife'."
We would agree that a man and wife are one flesh, and became one flesh. Thus by merely stating once (and in fact it is stated many times) that a man had wives, the concession is made that "flesh" or "one flesh" is not exclusive of many unions. A statement would have to be made that one should only be one flesh with one other. I am not aware of where this statement is made."3. Joachim Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus) states: 'in Mark 10:8 and Matthew 19:5 He quotes Genesis 2:24 in its antipolygamic form, i.e. with the words two flesh which are found only in the LXX, Syr.,Vulg., and Targum.'
Ideally, no man should disolve this union, but in fact he can as evidenced by the structure of Deuteronomy 24. The permanent destruction of that bond required a bit of participation since the woman that is divorced could choose not to take another husband, and thus leave open the path of return, but if divorced and if joined to another, the bond is clearly obliterated. The remarried ex wife is as off limits to you as your own sister."4. J. W. McGarvey (The Fourfold Gospel) states in regard to 'two flesh': 'Jesus went back to the original law propounded by God and recorded by Moses, and shows by it: 1. That marriage is a fundamental principle of social order, God having it in view from creation, and hence making male and female. 2. That the relation of marriage is superior even to the parental relation. 3. That by it the pair become one flesh, so that the man is as joined to his wife as to his own body. Now, since a man can only be separted from his parental relations or from his own body by death, which is an act of God, so it follows that the superior or similar relation of marriage can only be disolved by an act of God. Thus Jesus draws the conclusion that no man or body of men, whether acting in private, civil, or ecclesiastical capacity, can disolve marriage otherwise than according to the decrees of God."
Except that is not the structure of the statement. To paraphrase accurately, Jesus says, "If your wife commits adultery, you may divorce her and remarry. If you divorce your wife and she hasn't commited adultery, you may not remarry without sinning against your wife." The very structure of Matthew 19 undermines your argument. If the bond still stands, indissoluable, it wouldn't matter IF she had commited adultery or not. The bond is unbreakable. Thus even if she commited adultery, she would still be your bound wife and your remarriage would be another woman and an adultery. But Jesus excuses the man who has had adultery commited against him from committing adultery. Which is it? An indisoluable bond to which additions constitute adultery? Or is it a breakable bond? Divorce for adequate cause breaks the obligation of the husband to his ex. He can forgive and take her back, provided she does not move on to remarry.Homer wrote:"I am convinced the man in Jesus' discourse commits adultery because in Jesus' eyes the marriage to the first wife still stands."
Martin Luther.Homer wrote:"If you have some authority better than those cited, I'd like to hear it."
Yes actually, but I can prove that the law was never meant to apply in all ways the same to everyone. For our purposes though we must affirm that the law of sexual morality stays in place because of Acts 15 and the letter to the Gentile Churches. I don't think that "refrain from sexual immorality" meant "whatever you greeks think is sexually immoral." It meant what Jews understood to be sexually immoral. Thus sexual morality, marriage and sexual immorality as defined in the Old Testament are still operative.Homer wrote:"You stated 'Jesus view of the law is that it is still in place...'. Do you mean today?"
I do not believe in rights by and large. Rights are given to slaves.Homer wrote:"You continue to insist that the man has rights superior to that of the wife. Apparently you view the status of women as the Jews did - the same as children and slaves. The New Testament sets a different standard."
I took this public stance after more than ten years of more private debate and study. I was petrified with fear to do so. I am more confident in it now.Homer wrote:"Based on your arguments, I can't see how you are so bold (or rash)."
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: